Does Philosophy Have a Role in Computer Science? 239
Johannes Climacus asks: "It would seem to me that philosophical works of philosophers such as Aristotle, Leibniz, Frege, Russell, and Tarski could play a central role in a Computer Science curriculum, as they form a mathematical basis of modern CS and Math. Ethicists such as Plato, Kant, Hegel, Mill, and Heidegger might also play a normative role in Computer Ethics and technology in general. However, I haven't seen any philosophical discussion in any of my theoretical computer science courses besides some simple logic. Is it the same elsewhere? How often do philosophical concerns play into Computer Science education as a whole? What role does (or could) philosophy have in Computer Science or Information Technology?"
Yes, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yes, (Score:5, Insightful)
(I also took a lot of physics and math which no doubt helps, but the degree is philosophy) I feel the study of various logical abstractions helped widen my perspective. Not to mention you are trained to diagram any set of concept/relationships, which is also quite useful. My diagrams have consistent grammer, and I'm sure this is because I was trained how to create a legend that maps directly to real concepts (e.g. an arrow means something, and is only used for truly identical relationships. Of course, the arrow might mean different things in different diagrams, but within a given diagram: consistency). I'm not sure all Philosophy programs are so rigerous about logic... but it is the one thing, the only thing, that philosophers have any agreement over.
Re:Yes, (Score:3, Informative)
Surely you're thinking of deconstructionism and all the other garbage that gets pushed onto poor, unsuspecting lovers of the English language.
Philosophy deals mostly with logic. I wish more were taught in CS courses, if only to engender more rigorous thinking.
Re:Yes, (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, if you lack that, then philosophy is fascinating, critical to civilization and often very useful, particularly if combined with a requirement for observation -- ie science.
Re:Yes, (Score:2)
The conviction that philosophy does or does not have any intrinsic relevance to the real world is itself a philosophical question that cannot be blithely passed off. It requires philosophical treatment.
Now, if you lack that, then philosophy is fascinating, critical to civilization and often very useful,
The notion that the truth of an idea can or should be judged by its usefulness is a philosoph
Re:Yes, (Score:2)
Re:Yes, (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes, (Score:2)
How you got "no impact on the real world" out of that, I'm not sure.
What I said is that philosophy, combined with some objectivity, rigor and appropriate humility is not the same as the "utter crap" that lots of people see as being philosophy. That stuff is more of a party game for people who want to sound smart.
Re:Yes, (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes, (Score:2)
Enlightenment? (Score:3, Funny)
I think the kind of enlightenment you get from philosophy is not the kind that is ICCCM compliant.
MTW
Re:Enlightenment? (Score:2)
Certainly (Score:3, Insightful)
On a more general level, logic is an important component of both fields.
Also, on an even more general level, anything worth doing is worth examining a little bit.
Re:Certainly (Score:2)
Re:Certainly (Score:2)
Why? An artificial intelligence could also be based on the same substrate as we are -- neurons. They would just be artificially grown and arranged by us. That deals with Penrose too.
I think most ethics for whoever courses are taught v
Re:Certainly (Score:2)
Halting Problem (Score:2)
Also discussions of how intelligent a machine is where philosophy can help answer pertinent questions.
Philosophy combined with psychology might also help in the field of software engineering, that is, how should the programs we write be meaningful to developers and users of the software.
If philosophy doesn't help answer those questions, then the ability to think about problems is always a useful skill to have.
I never went to college.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It keeps me employable even if I'm not the best programmer/sysadmin/etc the world has ever seen, because I can pick and choose from the skills I do have to fix random problems as they come up. I usually have success. But, the neat thing about problem solving is that it's a universal skill that you can always get better at it. For example, once you learn a programming language, you know the language, the problem you encounter in becoming 'better' at that language is figuring out how to deal with problems and flush out theories, which takes critical problem solving skills that are better developed in philosophical study.
Anyway. That's my opinion. Science and Philosophy are very related, they just attract two diffrent types of people who don't always overlap.
Re:I never went to college.. (Score:2)
the problem you encounter in becoming 'better' at that language is figuring out how to deal with problems and flush out theories, which takes critical problem solving skills that are better developed in philosophical study.
Except that undergraduate philosophy has very little to do with problem solving. From what I've seen, it's more about analyzing arguments than finding solutions. Logical dissection is a useful skill, especially for testing and debugging, but it's not problem-solving. The problem wit
Re:I never went to college.. (Score:2)
Re:I never went to college.. (Score:4, Insightful)
While true, that remark is highly misleading. Yes, mathematics is based on the faith that our axiomatic system is consistent; but that faith is really just the faith that "there is a correct answer". In contrast, fields such as religion are based on the faith that "there is a correct answer, and it is X" (for some appropriate X).
The faith required to believe in mathematics is far more limited than the faith required, for example, to believe in God.
Re:P and not P implies Q (Score:2)
I think this is because certain things reverberate in our minds. I think these are incredible and awe inspiring hardware artefacts, that these images and ideas are present in our heads means we will generate stories that since they fit - will reverberate and nestle into those grooves into other minds. They're stories that run really well in our brains.
These ideas and models of right ways to live make successful societies. That tho
Re:I never went to college.. (Score:2)
There is a large difference between faith and experiental evidence. Mathematics is drawn from observation: without fail, when you put one object with another object, you have two objects. Mathematics has real and well-understood application in the real world, and ha
Re:I never went to college.. (Score:2)
As relates to comptuer science, lingustic philsophy would be a major area of interest. The question is, how do we communicate? I mean using language obvious
Re:I never went to college.. (Score:2)
Sounds like testing code to me. "Testing can prove the existence of bugs, but not their absence." ~E. Dijkstra
Seriously, that is a terrible argument. I have a magic towel that prevents the sun from exploding. It has worked thus far. Let's not even get into what my socks do.
Quick question, how would we p
Re:I never went to college.. (Score:2, Funny)
So, I hope you learned all you need to know about scoping, typing, binding, etc. from playing with your dog (whom shares properties from objects, therefore there may be some inheirtence as well).
Re:I never went to college.. (Score:2)
Get a grip, Will. I'm not hiring you back, I don't care how well you read programming books.
Roll your own (Score:4, Informative)
Have fun and remember, study as many topics as you can while you are in college. You will probably be doing CS stuff for the rest of your life, but you may only be able to easily take a class on film theory or comparative literature while you are an undergrad...
Re:Roll your own (Score:2)
Re:Roll your own (Score:2)
Here's my experience as someone who's actually paid to do philosophy (and philology, for that matter), and who likes to tinker with code from time to time:
Philosophy is a set of tools that help to describe reality. Large branches of philosophy include epistemology (the study of knowledge, what constitutes a science), noetics (how people cognize things), metaphysics (the underlying nature of reality), ontology (wha
Re:Roll your own (Score:2)
It's pretty much a common staple of any university with a strong phi and a strong CS department. America's best phi of CS departments are at U Pitt, U Chicago, UNC Chapel Hill, Harvard, Yale, UC Berkeley, SUNY Bighamton, Rutgers and Cal Tech, in that order. That said, there's a respectable Phi of CS department in maybe half of the universities in the nation.
So why not do what a lot of others have done and just ro
No thanks. (Score:2)
Re:No thanks. (Score:5, Informative)
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Philosophy is a lot more logical than most people would assume at first glance.
Re:No thanks. (Score:2)
Philosophy is not even remotely related to what popular media suggests it is. Philosophy is the study of knowledge. It is in every sense a meta-discipline; for any discipline with significant known content, there is a phi of that discipline. Philosophy is the basis of logic, and logic is the core of philosophy; phi teaches people to break things down, study them, refactor them, catego
Re:No thanks. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No thanks. (Score:3, Insightful)
Those are the two musts imo.
CS and philosophy (Score:2)
You may find the answer to your question in colloquium talks. My university's math department would hold them on Fridays and I found them very enlightening. The talks were good and the reaction of the audience gave me greater insight to the mind of mathematicians. You should try attending one.
Ask this guy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ask this guy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ask this guy (Score:5, Funny)
You're presupposing a teleological explanation for the "preview" button. I look at it from an existential perspective: the "preview" button simply is, and it's up to each of us to find some meaning - if any - for it.
:)
Re:Ask this guy (Score:2)
Basically he went from describing "component based design" (some spinnoff of object oriented) and then went into how this could be used to create more realistic virtual worlds. He then continued into the virtual world a
Check another faculty (Score:2)
So check the philosophy or psychology departments.
c.
The great H.L. Mencken on philosophy (Score:4, Informative)
"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all other philosophers are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself."
Everything applies to everything (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Everything applies to everything (Score:2)
I couldn't read your post, because the massive wall of text hurt my eyes, but I'm guessing you didn't mention all the English classes you're taking?
Holy shit! You went off on that entire little diatribe without using a single <p>. That has to be some kind of record: "Longest post by somebody too stupid to break their post into paragraphs." For fuck's sake, man! If you want people to read what you write, learn to use paragraphs.
Re:Everything applies to everything (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Everything applies to everything (Score:2)
Wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
I am currently a undergraduate at Muhlenberg College, and have been notably unhappy with their program. What appeared to be a friendly, small liberal arts college when I applied a year and a half ago has so far been rather disappointing. As a matter of background, I should note that my w
Re:Everything applies to everything (Score:2)
That's just blatantly untrue. Unlike any previous period in history, people today are both encouraged, and by necessity usually must change jobs multiple times in their careers, and be flexible within each job, enough to learn new techniques and take on new challenges. You don't just become a blacksmith and churn out nails and horseshoes for the rest of your life these days.
Re:Everything applies to everything (Score:2)
But a lot more interesting to hang out with.
Philosophy is meta-subject for anything. (Score:2)
Eh, not so much. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a basic study of philosophy would probably widen most people's perspectives on life and be a generally worthwhile experience. Also, the study of different types of logic and numerical systems has been useful professionally, which could be considered branches of philosophy, though they're probably more commonly found in mathematics curriculums (in my experience, anyway). However, interesting as they may be in their own right, I've never found that Hegelian dialectics or the basics of epistemology have really helped me build distributed data models or network traffic prediction algorithms.
On the other hand, if I were working in, say, AI research, I can see where a working knowledge of epistemology might be useful, so YMMV.
Yes, but economics first. (Score:2)
Imagine a future with multiple entities all operating. Many Adders, Multipliers, etc. Kinda like the cell but legion. Then each starts acting like market participants. eh?
Same with software. Muliptle threads, but in the thousands or millions. That is where the models will become the ones to describe them.
After that, philosophy will become very useful.
Cheers,
-b
Re:Yes, but economics first. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure I agree with most of what you say, but you're right about economics being a very useful thing to study.
I majored in CS and got a minor in econ (and in math), and I use the the econ stuff as much, if not more than the CS stuff. I don't know if minoring in it was entirely worthwhile, but going through intermediate microeconomics and intermediate macroeconomics was possibly the smartest thing I did while in college.
Re:Yes, but economics first. (Score:2)
Re:Yes, but economics first. (Score:2)
technology (Score:2)
Re:technology (Score:2)
No, they belong in a philosophy class. (Score:5, Funny)
Some philosophy teacher will surely turn this into a course. I imagine GT, where EVERYTHING is subjugated to engineering needs, could be one of the first if it's not already there. You could make it one of your required electives. Of course, a real philosophy person will rain on all our parades by telling us that this is already a class offering under a different name and those who change the name are pandering.
Now, who the hell are these people? Abandon all hope, ye who enter:
Please, God, make it stop.
Re:No, they belong in a philosophy class. (Score:3, Informative)
Frege is certainly important in philosophy of mathematics with the first
Yes (Score:2)
Take the Dining Philosopher's problem as a germane example.
Re:Kant was not a 'germane' (Score:2)
Prisoner's Dilemma (Score:2)
Any questions?
John McCarthy quote (Score:2)
Philosophy and Computer Science at opposite ends (Score:5, Funny)
The thing that interested me most about both studies is that they seemed to be both sides of the same coin. Not because of liberal arts vs. hard science, but in the way they had to deal with reality.
In a nutshell:
Philosophy tries to develop, enumerate, and proof basic concepts of existence. Platonic Forms, the monads, and Descartes dialouges are examples of literally trying to get the basic concepts of reality and use them to build bigger structures. Eventually, you could prove more and more complex ideas based on those basic priniciples, which hopefully corresponded with reality.
So, Philosophy tries to take reality and break it down into its individual elements.
Computer science taught about programming languages, algorithms, and circuit design. From those basic parts, we were to make mini CPUs, applications, and so forth. Then we would learn about Artifical Intelligence, and the issues with that.
Computer Science starts with the basic blocks, and tries to create 'reality' from it.
So, there is some curiosity (to me) in that one of the hardest issues in Computer Science is how to create 'intelligence' from basic building blocks. Then, one of the hardest issues in Philosophy is to derive the basic building blocks out of 'intelligence'.
Re:Philosophy and Computer Science at opposite end (Score:2)
What you describe is a single philoshpy known as reductionisim [wikipedia.org]. Scientific reductionisim [wikipedia.org] is why you find science and philosophy so similar. The basic difference is religion looks for God, philosopy looks for truth and science looks for proof, everything else is an art.
Re:Philosophy and Computer Science at opposite end (Score:2)
We also have these ones and zeros and know we can make them perform calculations for us. Calculating seems to be the start to true intelligence (making a connection and thinking "Aha! I just figured that out! Look how intelligent I am!") It doesn't necessarily follow that these complex calculators are going to
Of course... (Score:2)
Take a look at the kind of discourses on design patterns and pattern languages. Pure philosophy.
Also I'd say computer science people will have a totally different take on Descarte's Mind-Body problem. As in 'what problem'. And I can think of a bunch of other things that CS will change your outlook on.
What makes you think it's not? (Score:2, Redundant)
Maybe you need to find a school with a more well-rounded curriculum? They're out there...
I met an old timer once... (Score:5, Interesting)
#2 was mathematicians.
#1 was philosophers.
Enough said.
Re:I met an old timer once... (Score:2)
Research (Score:3, Insightful)
Philosophy is the science of demarcation (Score:3, Informative)
The goal of philosophy is methodological correctness, logic is at the heart of philosophy because that's how we describe method. Philosophy can only explore what the limits of lawfulness and order are. Without the ability to demarcate meaning, we cannot determine order. Why we seek lawfulness and order is a metaphysical question, it cannot be answered by philosophy, thus making philosophy incomplete and paying the price for objectivity.
Since computers are all systems of logic, we can use philosophy to determine what each system's limitations are and how differing systems can interact. Take the theoretical in computer science, how did we develop quantum computing? How will we integrate it into the rest of our systems? As we search for innovative ways to look for solutions to these questions, philosophy guides us, by maintaining methodological correctness, forcing us to maintain the integrity of the identity we have chosen.
Ethics is not philosophy. It is the application of objectivity to another set of goals, a different domain. If ethics is the domain of how to best get along with our neighbors and avoid creating unnecessary confrontation, then we can apply methodology to determine which statements are meaningful within this domain. For instance, Richard Stallman is a computer ethicist. His goal is to provide a particular ethical view of how we should integrate computer systems into our lives. Some statements are meaningful to these goals and others are not. Out of the meaningful statements, I can test which are most efficient at reaching specific goals, such as those of the FSF. I may not agree with those goals, I may oppose those goals, but since Stallman and the FSF have stated what their goals are, I can properly scope a domain. Once I understand the domain, I can test proposals and conjectures to determine which are most efficient towards reaching those goals. This is how objective knowledge grows, our motivation is always metaphysical. We cannot rationalize or justify inspiration. By understanding this, by enforcing methodological separation, we can concentrate on growing objective knowledge about our metaphysical goals. There is no natural imperative to understand the quantum structure of matter or to understand biological systems. We simply find these things useful, fulfilling.
If it is philosophy that you want to study, then study Critical Rationalism. The works of Popper, Bartley and Miller should keep you busy for a while and give you a thorough tour of just about everybody, as they've managed to falsify quite a few names in the summary. If it is ethics you are interested in, I can really only recommend who to avoid. Those who hide from criticism are unethical. Plato and Hegel are primarily useless. Both hid their ideas from criticism, attempting to fool the reader into prematurely aborting their attempt to rationalize their proposals. Plato taught 9 tyrants, Hegel was courtier to his own and the father of the Nazi lies. I would also avoid the spawn of these liars, Leo Strauss, Barth and Schaeffer. All of these have either embraced the Noble Lie or Nihilism. Either path is a cover from criticism; nihilism absurdly denies the capabilities of criticism, while the Noble Lie invokes paradox of the liar. One can never determine when a liar is inserting chaos into order to avoid criticism. Integrity is indispensable.
Re:Philosophy is the science of demarcation (Score:2)
When you start asking these questions, you enter to domain of philosophy. I'm not sure why you would assume you'd need a professional philosopher to ponder these questions anymore than you would need a professional physicist to think about relativity. The "well, duh" reaction to Popper is a testament to his work's success. It took a
Silly question (Score:2)
Similarly with philosophy: some concepts are similar (halting problem), you can borrow ideas from philosohpy, and
not the results but the practice of philosophy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:not the results but the practice of philosophy (Score:2)
Just a nitpick -- that's only true for sorts based on comparisons. Other sorts that don't require comparisons, such as radix and counting sorts can achieve a potentially smaller asymptotic bound.
Other than that, I have to agree with you. I know at least two programmers with degrees in philosophy. One was a CS professors at the college I attended. He had a fairly unique approach to teaching some of his cl
yes, philosophy is all over the place in CS (Score:2)
After class, you might encounter considerably more interesting philosophies-- interesting because they are controversial. The big one is the philosophy of Freedom as advocated by folks such as RMS, and the
Principia Mathematica and Relation Arithmetic (Score:2)
The tragedy is that there has been nearly a half century of computer science -- much of it involving relational systems such as RDBMS -- and only one real at
Re:Principia Mathematica and Relation Arithmetic (Score:2)
Considering that the average college-bound student gets nearly half of the questions wrong, that's not such an impressive feat. Let me know when it gets them all right, and I'll admit it as my equal. {grin}
Philosophy is necessary to control politics (Score:2)
You can leave politics alone, but it won't leave you alone. That's why the GNU philosophy [gnu.org] was necessary.
Don't forget Ockham (Score:2)
Monads in Haskell ?! (Score:2)
We need a machine consciousness. That would be a truly breaking point in philosophy.
No (Score:2)
The game of Mornington Crescent, on the other hand, as a great role to play in Philosophy.
If you really want an insight into modern philosophy, read or catch Jumpers, by Tom Stoppard.
After that read a bit of Kant, J L Austin, Nozick. Maybe have a look at some Strawson. Read Thought and Action by Hampshire. Several times.
Try to write down new thing you have learned. You will not be able to.
It is generally admitted in informal conversations between philsophers that
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it does, but its Never spoken or taught... (Score:2)
Never make something so simple that anyone can do it, otherwise you will be out of work.
Never create a perfect program because it leaves no room for selling upgrades.
wheNever someone comes along and exposes simplicity where there was complexity in your
application of the above, use your skill at abstraction manipulation to discredit and
dismiss their claims.
Never admit that you apply the Neverland philos
The connection seems marginal at best (Score:5, Insightful)
Having worked as a developer for 5 years since finishing grad school, I've been discouraged to find that the points of contact between philosophy and CS are VERY few and far between. Studying philosophy will definitely sharpen your reading, writing, and analytical skills, all of which are (or should be, if you're doing your job right) useful for programmers. But those are all general skills; my knowledge of philosophical theories or history or personalities are, frankly, never a part of my work life.
I can imagine scenarios where the two would be more closely intertwined: heavy duty academic logicians probably work in the intersection of CS and philosophy, and philosophy of mind may have some (tenuous) relevance to cutting-edge AI research. But here's the problem. Philosophy is really about defining terms and asking questions. As soon as terms are successfully defined in such a way that everyone (or most people) agrees on the definitions, and as soon as theories are deemed reliable enough to use in real-world situations, that particular line of inquiry leaves philosophy and is re-branded as science. (Chemistry and astronomy are two particularly clear examples of sciences that started out as philosophical topics way back with the Pre-Socratics.) So any "philosophy" that is concrete enough for CS researchers, developers, or sys admins to use would, most likely, no longer qualify as philosophy.
But even if philosphy is not all that relevant to people working in CS, I think it can be enormously useful to students who are focusing on CS. Besides the improved reading/writing/thinking I've already mentioned, the study of logic (which generally falls under the purview of philosophy) is a good thing for CS majors (though even it is less directly relevant to programming than you might imagine), and it's good to get practice in questioning the definitions of fundamental terms in any field (which, again, is what philosophy is all about). And of course, reading the work of people like Turing and Godel is crucial to understanding what computers can do, what their limitations might be, and how they might be fundamentally different (or similar to) human minds. But those are not areas that professional developers are likely to spend any time thinking about when their main concern is cranking out another 500 lines of Java before lunch. So I'd encourage CS students to study as much philosophy as they can in order to become smart, thoughtful, well-rounded people, but not to expect to use the content of their philosophy courses all that much once they're in the working world.
A final caveat: there are vast areas within the philosophy landscape that are completely irrelevant to programmers as programmers, though may be relevant to programmers as human beings. Ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy, all of continental philosophy (think Sartre or Heidegger or Derrida) fall into this category. There are, of course, many more.
Short answer (Score:2)
Yes.
How often do philosophical concerns play into Computer Science education as a whole?
Very rarely.
What role does (or could) philosophy have in Computer Science or Information Technology?
Huge. Aside from logic and mathematics, compiler design is built directly on language theory defined by Chomsky and his contemporaries, artifical intelligence research is built
Re:ask alan turing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ask alan turing (Score:2)
And it's the Church-T
Re:ask alan turing (Score:2)
I like this quote from Hofstadter, talking about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem [miskatonic.org]
"Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent
Re:ask alan turing (Score:2)
Not to nitpick, but I fail to see a factor that logically differentiates the notions of a God that "just is" and a universe that "just is." Of course I realize you're simplifying here. But absent other considerations, I see those two statements as possessing entirely equivalent justification (or lack thereof, depending on your inclination
Re:ask alan turing (Score:2)
Re:ask alan turing (Score:2)
Because the Turing machines are too hard to program? Or because fast and big memories are hard to build? I can't really understand what answer did you want from this.
Good catch (Score:2)
I think it might well be. That link, by the way, was very interesting (though I'll admit I didn't read all of it, by a long shot).
And while I agree that it may be the same person, I'm not sure if he/she/it is a "kook" or not. The problem with posts like that is that it takes too long to sort out the "here's a kook making invalid points" people from the "here's a reasonable person making detailed but valid points about something I don't have time to care about at the moment" people.
I guess the upshot i
Re:Usenet kook alert! (Score:2)
Re:Not Entirely Useless (Score:2)
Godel [miskatonic.org] put a stop to that nonsense along time ago.
Re:If you can't think, you can't learn (Score:2)
This is why, until a few centuries ago, "physics" was commonly called "natural philosophy".
Re:The Algol 60 Report (Score:2)
In English: If you can say it, you can say it clearly. If you can't say it, shut up.